W.P.B.A.news....
- Thread starter tigerseye
- Start date
Johnnyt said:
The simple fact that the WPBA are still doing ESPN coverage is proof that it must be profitable for them. Of course some of that may be due to their years of experience in doing this. (They probably get a better rate than a newcomer would and they must know by now how to manage their production costs pretty well.)
tigerseye said:Oh my bad, i thought the tourney started with all the ladies on day one...As far as her dominating this tourney....not in my eyes. To dominate means to be unchallenged without loss. That did not happen so therefore.....close but no cigar....
So in your mind if someone went undefeated and beat all there opponents hill/hill, than that would be domintation? I think not...
Last edited:
AuntyDan said:
All I can say is that it is extremely foolish to make assumptions about something where there are no visible facts. As we've seen over and over again, the appearance of success is not the same as actually being successful. I love the WPBA and the fact that they are the only visible pro tour in pool (in the US anyway), but when you consider the cost to produce, the cost to get it on ESPN, the cost to pay out the prizes, profitability is not exactly a safe assumption.
Your line of thought is exactly what caused so many people to get donkeypunched by the IPT. If you want to go beyond pool, just take a look at the wasteland of dead internet companies. Everyone was sure they were making money hand over fist until they cracked the books. It was like an elevator opening at The Overlook Hotel, with the red pouring all over the place.
For further proof of this, you can look at the BCA. Long running tournament, on ESPN, decent prize funds. Based on your logic, they should be making money. The reality however, is that the tournament was losing them over $100,000 per year which is why the tournament no longer exists.
In this economy with the crappy ratings and lack of interest in the US for pool, its a safer bet that the WPBA is barely treading water than printing money. After all, how much do you really think a company would pay to run an ad on programming that pulls an average 0.35 rating?
poolsnark said:
A well considered post, but the fact remains that the WPBA is able to attain much higher sanctioning fees from the venues when an event is televised. As you note, the WPBA is visible, and TV has been instrumental in establishing its brand image.
You are right that TV coverage doesn't prove that an event is profitable, but TV improves the bottom line by raising much more money in sanctioning fees, more than enough to justify the outlay of production costs. It's a business model that has been working a long, long time, due to the exceptional management and vision of those who built and helped sustain the WPBA.
Marop said:
hmmm...I believe J.Lee had the smae win to loss ratio also...my math isn't great but it was 80 games played, won 54 loss 26....just a touch better than 50%...Looking at it like this seems we have another dominate player, going by your version of domination....
tigerseye said:
If you play 80 games and win 54 of them the winning percentage is .675 which is a lot better than a 50% win pct.
poolsnark said:
Until or unless the WPBA curtail or cancel their programming, or declare insolvency, the visible facts that my assumptions are correct can be seen on ESPN every week. I'm sorry if this does not make sense to you but the demonstrable facts are that it currently does to them.
I don't personally feel I am making an "extremely foolish assumption", as I feel the available facts fit my argument. You are countering me by making an assumption of your own that it is "too expensive for anyone to produce televised Pool". You cannot provide any facts to back up your claim either. You don't know the exact costs or the advertising sales rates. You are simply using anecdotal evidence from other organizations, which I don't think are directly relevant to the WPBA.
poolsnark said:
The BCA is not a good comparison as it is a trade association, not a players organization. They can cancel an event like this with impunity and not have it affect anything else in their business model. My understanding is they used to hold this tournament in conjunction with a public show, which they have now changed to a trade-only event. Without an audience gate to offset the cost they can just chose not to to fund it anymore. The WPBA however is a players organization and can only survive as long as it is servicing their members. They try to provide their members with the best possible media exposure that their budget will allow, which in turn allows their members sponsorship and promotional opportunities they would not otherwise have. AFAIK they have no requirement to be profitable, only to cover their operating expenses.
poolsnark said:
The IPT is not a good comparison as it was publicly announced as a pilot project that was not required to make money, and indeed was expected to lose money for the first few years. The loss was supposed to be offset against long-term gains by developing televised Pool as a popular commercial product similar to Poker with big purses and glamorous presentation. Mr. Trudeau publicly stated that he just wanted to have fun and "benefit the whole person" and was rich enough to cover any losses personally. The reason the industry got "donkeypunched" was because Mr. Trudeau succeeding for just long enough to get the majority of the industry excited (Notwithstanding the accursed naysayers and prophets of doom) and then failed to fulfill his financial commitments. In other words he fired a few good barrels then shot off a giant air-barrel and lost. The IPT lasted less than a year as an actual Pro Tour. The WPBA has lasted for 22 years so far. I know which one I'd bet on.
I personally still think that something similar to the IPT could succeed in becoming at least self-sustaining in the long term if it had sensible, consistent management and the adequate funding for the first few years. However I won't deny this is wishful thinking on my part and I have no evidence to prove it is possible.
poolsnark said:
I have no idea what they pay for the ad spots, but they obviously paying something and some advertising revenue is better than none. I have no doubt the ratings are low, but low is still better than none.
Even if the WPBA is doing nothing but breaking even in terms of costs I still cannot agree with your original statement that the TV coverage should be cancelled in favor of longer, non-televised tournaments (Which BTW would increase their tournament operational expenses.) There are benefits to the WPBA and it's members from their regular television appearances beyond direct financial returns.
tigerseye said:
If she won 66 out of 90 games her win pct is .733 or 73.3%
Good win by Jasmin! Congrat's to her and her dominance. 
I think you can be dominant, but still have a loss, so long as you're dominating in your wins. Look at baseball. A team could have won 7 of their last 8 games (for the sake of the argument, they lost the 4th game in this stretch). Their wins are by margins of 8-10 runs. The loss was a 4-2 loss. That streak would still most likely be called dominant, even with the one loss.
PJ
PJ
Hi all -
Just wanted to clarify 1 thing. The WPBA does not now, nor has it ever, paid ESPN to put our shows on the air. We do pay production costs to a production company, but we do not pay a penny to ESPN. That story has been around so long it's almost an urban pool legend, but it is completely 100% untrue. (and we're doing a little better than treading water)
Melissa
Just wanted to clarify 1 thing. The WPBA does not now, nor has it ever, paid ESPN to put our shows on the air. We do pay production costs to a production company, but we do not pay a penny to ESPN. That story has been around so long it's almost an urban pool legend, but it is completely 100% untrue. (and we're doing a little better than treading water
)Melissa
Melissa Herndon said:Hi all -
Just wanted to clarify 1 thing. The WPBA does not now, nor has it ever, paid ESPN to put our shows on the air. We do pay production costs to a production company, but we do not pay a penny to ESPN. That story has been around so long it's almost an urban pool legend, but it is completely 100% untrue. (and we're doing a little better than treading water
Melissa
Thanks for the inside information! It's good to hear they are doing well.